I think the problem here is that a lot of Christians don't follow a religion. They believe in Jesus so they consider themselves Christians even if that's as far as their spirituality goes. This may be where DarkEl is coming from, he doesn't follow a religion, but as a Christian (someone who believes in Jesus) he is offended by being associated with Mormons. Just a guess.

I think the problem here is that a lot of Christians don't follow a religion. They believe in Jesus so they consider themselves Christians even if that's as far as their spirituality goes. This may be where DarkEl is coming from, he doesn't follow a religion, but as a Christian (someone who believes in Jesus) he is offended by being associated with Mormons. Just a guess.

Well then, he's not a Christian, is he? He's just a Godless heathen masquerading as a Christian.

I think the problem here is that a lot of Christians don't follow a religion. They believe in Jesus so they consider themselves Christians even if that's as far as their spirituality goes. This may be where DarkEl is coming from, he doesn't follow a religion, but as a Christian (someone who believes in Jesus) he is offended by being associated with Mormons. Just a guess.

hmmm people keep thinking that for some reason i have a problem with Mormons.

I don't.

If you read back through the threads you'll see that it was some other people who were so vehemently opposed to Christians and Mormons beings grouped together. Someone ( I think it was you Lee) asked why the Mormons aren't considered Christian and thus I did a little research and brought forth what I thought was a sane and factual web page that explained the differences between the two belief systems.

Then when people started asking questions (albeit in an accusative manner) I tried to help answer some of them. In all of this, i have been very purposeful to present the information simply as facts and without any of my own bias. The question was - why do Christians consider Mormons to be something non-Christian. I gave facts, not personal opinions or beliefs - yet some people like blackadar kept attempting to twist my words or attribute things that he said to myself in order to support his pre-concieved beliefs. I don't mind if people disagree with the way things are but I absolutely hate people that choose to remain in ignorance by refusing to accept facts because they disagree with their preconceived ideas of how they want things to be.

The things that I believe are based on facts, experiments and experience. But even with those things - I don't hold any belief so dear that I'm not willing to re-examine them when new evidence is presented. Blackadar (and unbreakable for that matter) are exactly the opposite - they come in with a strong belief of how they think things should be and then try and twist the facts around or read into things to try and support what they want to believe. I came into this discussion hoping for an intelligent and open conversation about the facts but that's just not possible with some people.

But to set the record straight. Here's my stance on the matter.

I don't really care. If all the Church leaders of the different denominations came out tomorrow and said that they decided to declare that the Mormon church was now to be considered a Christian denomination, it wouldn't affect me in the least. At the end of the day -- all that really matters to me is myself and my family. As long as I'm comfortable with the beliefs that we have and believe that we're both good people and in right relationship with God - then why should i care what a bunch of other people believe if it's not going to affect me.

Someone asked a question - and I gave them an "official answer" and then tried to help people understand why that answer is that way. That's all.

There's no unifying certification body for "Christian" churches, therefore there's no "official answer." It's all delightfully subjective - which is fine - but don't try to pretend that there's an objective answer.

Mormons self-identify as part of the Christian tradition. Some denominations (like yours, apparently) don't accept their self-identification as valid. Your denomination, though, is also self-identifying as Christian. There's the rub. I guess it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, Catholics, and Baptists, because one can easily find scriptural divergences from whatever you were raised in. In your belief system, are they "close enough" for God's purposes?

Like I said I gave what is considered an "official answer" representing not just a single denomination but a wide spectrum of denominational stances. In that regard as there is significant agreement across denominational and doctrinal lines about this subject (even across groups that might not normally agree) - I think it's fair to declare that this is an objective answer from what we would consider the Christian Churches as a whole.

You may not like that they came to that conclusion - but rather than trying to subjectify it, it would be better to understand why they came to that conclusion. We can't redefine the facts just because they would be convenient for own beliefs, mmmkay?

As for my opinions on other groups - I've already stated that I'm not interested in going into arguments for arguments sake. Which is really what you're proposing. You want to start some big holy war fight just to get people riled up. Which I find horribly boring.

However if anyone wants to have intelligent discussions on religious matters I'm all for that.

However if anyone wants to have intelligent discussions on religious matters I'm all for that.

You said you presented "basic info", but then failed to answer the extremely relevant question regarding the actual definition of Christianity (asked and answered by more than one person), acknowledge any possible bias presented by the ONE source you cited (then castigated me for presenting the first 3 hits of my first 3 searches), failed to distinguish the difference between a denomination and a religious categorization and continually failed to understand or acknowledge that error. Really, shit, your entire argument is "because some other Christian sects say they ain't so" and has been for the entire page, without regards to anything else. Seriously, you've contributed nothing to the discussion. Since you're simply too obtuse to understand basic concepts and too uneducated on religious history, I don't think you can take part in any intelligent discussion on religious matters. Perhaps www.disney.com is more your speed.

But anyways back to the discussion -- believing in Christ is not the sole definition of a Christian. The bible says that even demons believe that -- would that make a demon a Christian?

Or reversing your argument - Could I refuse to accept the Mormon bible yet still have every right to call myself a Mormon?

or call my wifes Ford Focus a Porsche because they both drive on the road and require gas to go.

Just because there are similarities between two things doesn't make them the same. Mormons are Mormons and Christians are Christians.

Why does that difference bother you so much?

First of all, demons may believe in him, such as "I believe he exists as he kicked my ass". They do not worship him or his teachings, nor do they hold faith in him. That doesn't fit.

AFAIK, the Mormon faith does not refute the Christian bible; they've added to it. Totally different perspective. If what their faith dictates flies into the face of the tenents set forth by the Christian faith then NO, they would not be part of Chistianity. Islam, for example, states that Christianity has warped the meanings. They believe in Christ, but have pushed away from Christianity.

Lastly, labelling your wifes car, of which there is absolute proof, something else is a far stretch in a theological debate in which there is no proof of god or which denomination is "correct". Calling it a vehicle based on internal combustion and referring to the Porsche in the same category is fair; calling one the other is wrong.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

However if anyone wants to have intelligent discussions on religious matters I'm all for that.

You said you presented "basic info", but then failed to answer the extremely relevant question regarding the actual definition of Christianity (asked and answered by more than one person), acknowledge any possible bias presented by the ONE source you cited (then castigated me for presenting the first 3 hits of my first 3 searches), failed to distinguish the difference between a denomination and a religious categorization and continually failed to understand or acknowledge that error. Really, shit, your entire argument is "because some other Christian sects say they ain't so" and has been for the entire page, without regards to anything else. Seriously, you've contributed nothing to the discussion. Since you're simply too obtuse to understand basic concepts and too uneducated on religious history, I don't think you can take part in any intelligent discussion on religious matters. Perhaps www.disney.com is more your speed.

I understand that you want to be the next unbreakable and that your day probably just won't be complete until you get to lick his ball sac dry. But you know - coming in here and trying to argue about things that you have no understanding about just reveals your obvious deficiencies.

Your attempts to try and make up for them by acting all pseudo-intellectual simply bore me now. Which is why I decided to end the conversation with you. You wanted to argue beyond the point of any profit coming from it in some pathetic attempt to make yourself feel better. You can try and twist it around any way you want but to say that I added nothing to the conversation is the sheer definition of delusion.

Maybe it's time for you to grow up and find a new playground with people who might actually believe your act.

Lastly, labelling your wifes car, of which there is absolute proof, something else is a far stretch in a theological debate in which there is no proof of god or which denomination is "correct". Calling it a vehicle based on internal combustion and referring to the Porsche in the same category is fair; calling one the other is wrong.

How can we determine the name of anything absolutely? I mean we call a car a specific name because 'that's what we were told to call it by everyone else'

In a sense every religion on Earth believes in Christ because there is solid evidence that he was a man that lived and taught large groups of people about God.

... and if they don't they're heathens or just a "cult" and I'm sure there are religions including atheist views that discount the very existance of Christ, let alone A Christ-King-God. There are many examples of non-christian faiths. They account for roughly 60% of the world population. I don't know that Taoism Sihkism or Hinduism recognized Christ existed, based on region and locale. I'd be interested in seeing their texts that show his presence as more than just the waves of the western culture in a third-party method.

Quote from: DarkEL on January 25, 2008, 09:14:51 PM

But it's more than just believing that he existed but it goes down to the root of who a person believes Jesus is that defines if a person is a Christian or not.

From the article I originally liked to -- Mormons believe that Jesus is an "elder brother who has ascended to Godhood", and that all can become godsChristians believe that Jesus is God and that there is only one God.

Mormons believe that salvation is earned through obedience to Mormon commandsChristians believe that salvation is earned through accepting what Jesus accomplished and entering into a relationship with him

etc, etc from that page I linked to.

See, now you contradict yourself. First you mention that all religions recognize Christ existed, and then go on to claim that the requirements of Christianity are that they believe in him as One God. Aren't there three? Father, Son and Holy Ghost? What about the fact that we are all gods children, and perhaps Christ was raised to a god status? This neither invalidates the persons belief that Christ is God or that his teachings are being ignored. As far as I'm concerned, that's just plain rubbish. That's like one child claiming to be more modest than the other.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Lastly, labelling your wifes car, of which there is absolute proof, something else is a far stretch in a theological debate in which there is no proof of god or which denomination is "correct". Calling it a vehicle based on internal combustion and referring to the Porsche in the same category is fair; calling one the other is wrong.

How can we determine the name of anything absolutely? I mean we call a car a specific name because 'that's what we were told to call it by everyone else'

now you're being silly.

Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson

Lastly, labelling your wifes car, of which there is absolute proof, something else is a far stretch in a theological debate in which there is no proof of god or which denomination is "correct". Calling it a vehicle based on internal combustion and referring to the Porsche in the same category is fair; calling one the other is wrong.

How can we determine the name of anything absolutely? I mean we call a car a specific name because 'that's what we were told to call it by everyone else'

I understand that you want to be the next unbreakable and that your day probably just won't be complete until you get to lick his ball sac dry. But you know - coming in here and trying to argue about things that you have no understanding about just reveals your obvious deficiencies.

Your attempts to try and make up for them by acting all pseudo-intellectual simply bore me now. Which is why I decided to end the conversation with you. You wanted to argue beyond the point of any profit coming from it in some pathetic attempt to make yourself feel better. You can try and twist it around any way you want but to say that I added nothing to the conversation is the sheer definition of delusion.

Maybe it's time for you to grow up and find a new playground with people who might actually believe your act.

And you still have yet to make any valid points in this thread, so I'm not surprised that you decided to take your ball and go home, Junior. You've just confirmed that, despite your protestations, you really have some deep-seated fear and bigotry about somehow being lumped in with Mormons.

In a sense every religion on Earth believes in Christ because there is solid evidence that he was a man that lived and taught large groups of people about God.

... and if they don't they're heathens or just a "cult" and I'm sure there are religions including atheist views that discount the very existance of Christ, let alone A Christ-King-God. There are many examples of non-christian faiths. They account for roughly 60% of the world population. I don't know that Taoism Sihkism or Hinduism recognized Christ existed, based on region and locale. I'd be interested in seeing their texts that show his presence as more than just the waves of the western culture in a third-party method.

Well i think there's enough evidence that he existed irregardless of who people might think he was.

Quote from: DarkEL on January 25, 2008, 09:14:51 PM

But it's more than just believing that he existed but it goes down to the root of who a person believes Jesus is that defines if a person is a Christian or not.

From the article I originally liked to -- Mormons believe that Jesus is an "elder brother who has ascended to Godhood", and that all can become godsChristians believe that Jesus is God and that there is only one God.

Mormons believe that salvation is earned through obedience to Mormon commandsChristians believe that salvation is earned through accepting what Jesus accomplished and entering into a relationship with him

etc, etc from that page I linked to.

See, now you contradict yourself. First you mention that all religions recognize Christ existed, and then go on to claim that the requirements of Christianity are that they believe in him as One God. Aren't there three? Father, Son and Holy Ghost? What about the fact that we are all gods children, and perhaps Christ was raised to a god status? This neither invalidates the persons belief that Christ is God or that his teachings are being ignored. As far as I'm concerned, that's just plain rubbish. That's like one child claiming to be more modest than the other.[/quote]

Perhaps - but like I said - I'm tired of this discussion turned debate. Hoping to move on to better things.

Hey did you see that Canada listed America as a country that practices torture and then removed them from that list when America found out about it?